Modern.gov Breadcrumb
- Agenda item
Modern.gov Content
Agenda item
Motions
Note:
Under the Council’s constitution, 30 minutes are available for the consideration of motions. In practice, this realistically means that there is usually only time for one, or possibly two motions to be considered. With the agreement of the Lord Mayor, motion 1 below will be considered at this meeting, and motion 2 may be considered subject to time. Details of other motions submitted, (which, due to time constraints, are very unlikely to be considered at this meeting) are also set out for information.
1. VOTES AT 16
Motion to be moved by: Cllr Jude English, Green, Ashley ward
“Full Council notes:
1. That currently 1.5 million 16 and 17 year olds are denied the vote in public elections in the UK.
2. That 16 and 17 year olds are able to vote in local elections in Scotland, and in elections to the Scottish and Manx Parliament.
3. That the campaign to lower the voting age is supported by thousands of young people across the UK, as well as a wide range of youth and democracy organisations and hundreds of MPs and elected representatives across the UK, and that following a nationwide consultation, the UK Youth Parliament voted it as their national campaign for 2017, and that it is also an integral part of the Bristol Youth Manifesto.
Full Council believes that:
1. 16 and 17 year olds are knowledgeable and passionate about the world in which they live and are as capable of engaging in the democratic system as any other citizen;
2. Lowering the voting age to 16, combined with strong citizenship education, would empower young people to better engage in society and influence decisions that will define their future;
3. People who can consent to medical treatment, work full-time, pay taxes, get married or enter a civil partnership and join the armed forces should also have the right to vote.
Full Council resolves to call on the Mayor to:
1. Publically support votes at 16 and join the Votes at 16 Coalition;
2. Inform local MPs and the media of this decision and work with them in support of this campaign;
3. Promote this policy through council communications;
4. Run activities to raise awareness of and support for Votes at 16 in Bristol;
5. If Bristol pilots e-voting, to commit to including 16 and 17 year olds for demonstration purposes, and further extend e-voting to Bristol City Youth Council elections, demonstrating innovation in digital democracy;
6. Formally request to government that Bristol be used as a pilot to trial Votes at 16 in council elections.”
2. MITIGATION OF UNIVERSITY EXPANSION
Motion to be moved by: Cllr Anthony Negus, Liberal Democrat, Cotham ward
“Full Council notes the benefits that the Universities bring our City: vibrancy, earnings, new value added businesses, employment opportunities and a source of civic pride. But there are downsides too and as recent growth has been high and is expected to reach 60,000, these new generally short term residents are increasing the severe strain on council services, the housing market and longer term residents in high-density student areas.
Particular groups are disproportionately affected:
- Anyone renting, due to increased demand for accommodation and so paying higher rents, and this includes university staff and their post and undergraduates too.
- Residents living in communities which are affected by high concentrations of this one demographic.
- Council finances; the provision of services to tens of thousands of students. These services used to be funded by the Government from a block grant but this is being cut to zero.
Full Council therefore asks the Mayor to:
1) In conjunction with other Council Leaders, engage with the Government, to highlight that the current approach to university growth is creating unsustainable pressure on Council resources; having to service 100% of its population with only 85-90% of them paying council tax. Adequate funding arrangements will probably require changes to planning obligation and taxation advantages given to university and student accommodation of all sizes. A grant or a means of local collection and redistribution of taxes needs to be put in place so Councils can provide services like street cleaning and implement the housing and transport solutions required to ensure balanced communities and mitigate the effects of university expansion on the housing market.
In addition Full Council agrees that necessary work should be done locally in Bristol and in the Combined Authority to update the Universities’ masterplans so as to deliver sustainable future expansion, housing and transport solutions. Co-operative recording and planning policies need to be updated and true recognition given to the impact that unbalanced communities bring to all residents.
Further Full Council requests the Mayor to instruct officers to:
2) Develop a bespoke SPD which looks at best practice around the country, uses up to date data from Universities on their impact, both positive and negative and seeks to improve the amenity of everyone’s lives in areas hard hit by current and future growth in numbers.
3) Require the Universities to support transport and housing solutions for more than just first years.
4) Set up an all-party commission to oversee the above processes and liaise with Universities to progress other possible approaches, and keeping members informed.”
Details of other motions submitted, (which, due to time constraints, are very unlikely to be considered at this meeting) are set out below for information:
3. SAVING BRISTOL’S STREET TREES
Motion submitted by: Cllr John Goulandris, Conservative, Stoke Bishop ward
“Council is extremely concerned about the hasty decision by Highways drastically to reduce - by 78% - departmental spending on the Street Tree Management Programme.
This move is said to be part of wider savings to be achieved within the highways maintenance budget. However, there seems to have been no prior consultation either within the Council with tree officers or externally with residents and other stakeholders. It would appear that no proper consideration has been given to the efficacy of such action or whether such savings are sustainable. For example, the relevant line in the Mayor’s budget last February simple states ‘reduce revenue funding by £1.7m’. This clearly does not articulate sufficiently how such a saving proposal was to be made or the likely impact it could have on the city’s treescape.
Council seriously questions the wisdom of such a sudden and massive spending cut on essential tree maintenance, which raises issues over public safety, increased pollution, damage to roads, pavements and property, as well as leading to a potential rise in compensatory insurance claims and payments. Short term savings in year 1 could well be outweighed by long term costs in future years.
Savings do, of course, have to be found by Bristol City Council. At a recent public meeting to discuss future street tree maintenance, residents stated that they would much prefer available money being redirected from over engineered traffic management/highways projects e.g. unnecessary traffic light installations and instead put towards helping to maintain our tree canopy, which is environmentally invaluable in helping to absorb CO2 and maintain air quality.
Accordingly, Council calls on the Mayor to reinstate street tree maintenance funding, until such time as a proper evaluation of the implications of this cut has been undertaken and a new street tree policy – formulated with the help of experienced bodies like the Bristol Tree Forum and the Council’s in house tree officers – is adopted.”
4. LITTER ENFORCEMENT
Motion submitted by: Cllr Tony Carey, Conservative, Brislington East ward
"Council very
much welcomes the 'Clean Streets' campaign launched last year in an
effort to encourage people to do more in tackling Bristol's annual
waste mountain.
Inevitably, rigorous enforcement of the litter laws through the
issuing of fixed penalty notices (fines) will be a significant
factor in the effectiveness of this strategy and in deterring
littering and other anti-social behaviours.
To date, this Authority has not been as active in this regard as
some others. For example, Wirral Borough Council has achieved
tremendous results through outsourcing its environmental protection
services to a specialist private company. Remarkably, the
adoption of a zero-tolerance policy and regular, dedicated, patrols
brought in £281,000 in fines for the first three months of
operation under this new regime.
Sadly, such an approach and outcome contrasts markedly to the
situation which persists in our city.
Accordingly, Council calls on the Mayor to look into the above
example of best practice and consider adopting a similar model here
to really achieve a cleaner, greener Bristol.”
5. POLICING TRAVELLER TRESPASS
Motion submitted by: Cllr Steve Jones, Conservative, Stockwood ward
“Council remains concerned over the recent plethora of illegal traveller encampments set up around the city.
Whilst these transgressions are normally a seasonal phenomenon associated with the traditional travelling months beginning in the spring and running through to the Autumn, it is recognised that Bristol’s valued open and green spaces are vulnerable to such incursions all year round.
Council notes that whilst there are a range of effective statutory powers available to provide a quick remedy (eviction), regrettably there is a shortage of equivalent provisions at the disposal of the private citizen. Instead, such persons are expected to seek repossession of their land through the civil law route. This can be a time-consuming and expensive process.
Consequently, Council calls on the Mayor to (i) lobby Central Government to issue new guidelines on the application of sections 61-62 of the Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994 to the effect that, operationally, there is to be a presumption in favour of the use of this police enforcement power and (ii) that he liaise with the Police & Crime Commissioner for Avon & Somerset Constabulary to change the local culture or approach taken by her Force in such matters to intervene and use these public order provisions in most cases of traveller trespass.”
6. FUTURE OF THE LIBRARY SERVICE
Motion submitted by: Cllr Geoff Gollop, Conservative, Westbury-on-Trym and Henleaze ward
“Council very much regrets the decision taken by the Mayor and his Labour colleagues to reduce the Library Service Budget by £1.4m over the next three years, and to cut its immediate funding by £300k.
Sadly, alternative options put forward by Opposition Members, which would have removed this threat to the city’s current branch network - by redirecting existing resources - were not supported by the controlling Labour group. Now, Council is concerned over the risible options presented as part of the latest public consultation over the future of this important and valued community service.
As a result, if any of the three poor choices presented are implemented, Bristolians will see some extremely popular libraries closed whilst other, little used buildings, are bizarrely kept open.
Moreover, Council is disturbed that the Mayor seems to have discarded the use of different models of provision – such as involving volunteers in the running of libraries - which has proved so successful in other parts of the country. For example, (Conservative controlled) Suffolk County Council has managed to retain all of its 44 branches in this way and by operating them through an ‘arms-length’ independent body (Industrial Provident Society).
Accordingly, Council calls on the Mayor discard the limited options contained in the ‘Your Neighbourhood’ consultation and adopt more imaginative and innovative solutions – including technological advances like extended access as used in South Gloucestershire and a greater role for volunteers – which could both cut costs and keep more of our existing library network open.”
7. CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE PARIS AGREEMENT
Motion submitted by: Cllr Gary Hopkins, Liberal Democrat, Knowle ward
“This council requests that our city Mayor writes to the American White House to express our extreme concern about the reckless and irresponsible action of President Trump in withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement. The impact of this will affect Bristol as a sustainable city, as it will affect other cities worldwide.
In writing we would associate ourselves with the letter from Nancy Polanski and the many city and state leaders in the United States who have urged him to reconsider and pledged their areas to continuing and speeding up responsible action.
Whilst this sort of letter should normally come from national government, the present British government has failed to act so we, as a sustainable city, must lead.”
8. PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
Motion submitted by: Cllr Eleanor Combley, Green, Bishopston and Ashley Down ward
“Following the recent general election, Full Council notes that the 'First Past the Post' voting system:
1. Has again failed to live up to its reputation to provide strong and stable government, delivering the second minority government in a decade;
2. Has again yielded a wildly disproportionate allocation of seats with, for example, the Democratic Unionist Party gaining 10 seats from 292,316 votes compared with 12 seats from 2.4 million votes for the Liberal Democrats;
3. Has spectacularly failed to match votes to seats with 27,930 votes required to elect one MP from the Scottish National Party compared with 525,371 votes to elect one Green Party MP;
4. Has resulted in 68% of votes being ‘wasted’ i.e. having no effect on the outcome of the election.
Full Council believes:
1. That a Parliament that more accurately reflects the views of the nation is more likely to develop an economic, social and environmental agenda that benefits Bristol’s residents;
2. That enabling people to feel that their votes count would increase voter engagement and participation;
3. Recognises that a robust democracy must include a fair voting system and that nobody should be disenfranchised because of where they live;
4. Applauds the many groups and organisations campaigning for fair votes including the Electoral Reform Society, Make Votes Matter and the Labour Campaign for PR;
5. Notes that the Single Transferable Vote system is already used for local elections in Scotland and in both Northern Irish local elections and the Northern Ireland Assembly while proportional electoral systems are used to elect the devolved parliaments and assemblies in Scotland, Wales and London;
6. Therefore calls for the introduction of a proportional voting system
a. for local elections in England and Wales;
b. for Westminster elections.
Full Council resolves to call on the Mayor to:
1. Publically support proportional representation as the national electoral system;
2. Inform local MPs and the media of this decision and work with them in support of this campaign;
3. Forward a copy of this motion to the Leaders of all political parties represented in the UK Parliament, and to all Bristol MPs.”
9. PAVEMENT PARKING
Motion submitted by: Cllr Charlie Bolton, Green, Southville ward
“Full Council notes:
The campaign by the Bristol Walking Alliance on pavement parking, and in particular its petition which states:
‘We call on the Mayor to ban parking on pavements in Bristol.
In particular, we ask the Mayor, councillors, officers, partner agencies and Bristol's four MPs to:
1. Raise public awareness about the negative impacts of pavement parking for all residents, but especially people with sensory or mobility impairments, children, parents and carers, frail and elderly people and other pedestrians who are either forced to walk in the road or are unable to access their destination;
2. Support proactively the Local Government Association's initiative to make pavement parking a clear offence;
3. Until such legislation is in place, use existing new Traffic Regulation Orders to end the damage to pavements, to social inclusion and to public health caused by parking on Bristol's pavements.
This will give residents of Bristol the same benefits as those living in London where legislation already bans pavement parking.’
Full Council resolves to call on the Mayor to endorse the campaign and implement its recommendations.”
10. LIBRARY CONSULTATION
Motion submitted by: Cllr Tim Kent, Liberal Democrat, Hengrove and Whitchurch Park ward
“This Council notes the consultation on the future of library
services in the city.
This Council regrets that the only option being consulted with
residents is to remove all funding from 17 of the council's 28
libraries, closing them.
Council is gravely concerned that other viable alternatives have
not been fully explored or considered.
This Council believes the consultation being run is premature and
misleading. Council has not yet made a decision on the medium term
financial plan or on the total funding for libraries for the
future. The consultation claims that on "21st February 2017 Full
Council decided to save £1.4m from the Library service
budget" - this is an untrue and misleading statement as no such
decision was made. A reduction of £300,000, voted through by
Labour councillors, was agreed.
Council calls for the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods to issue an
apology for this premature and misleading consultation. Council
further calls on her and the Mayor to withdraw the consultation and
proposals for library cuts and instead engage in meaningful
dialogue with all councillors and the scrutiny commission for
neighbourhoods into other options.”
Minutes:
Motion 1 – Votes at 16
Councillor English moved the following motion:
“Full Council notes:
1. That currently 1.5 million 16 and 17 year olds are denied the vote in public elections in the UK.
2. That 16 and 17 year olds are able to vote in local elections in Scotland, and in elections to the Scottish and Manx Parliament.
3. That the campaign to lower the voting age is supported by thousands of young people across the UK, as well as a wide range of youth and democracy organisations and hundreds of MPs and elected representatives across the UK, and that following a nationwide consultation, the UK Youth Parliament voted it as their national campaign for 2017, and that it is also an integral part of the Bristol Youth Manifesto.
Full Council believes that:
1. 16 and 17 year olds are knowledgeable and passionate about the world in which they live and are as capable of engaging in the democratic system as any other citizen;
2. Lowering the voting age to 16, combined with strong citizenship education, would empower young people to better engage in society and influence decisions that will define their future;
3. People who can consent to medical treatment, work full-time, pay taxes, get married or enter a civil partnership and join the armed forces should also have the right to vote.
Full Council resolves to call on the Mayor to:
1. Publically support votes at 16 and join the Votes at 16 Coalition;
2. Inform local MPs and the media of this decision and work with them in support of this campaign;
3. Promote this policy through council communications;
4. Run activities to raise awareness of and support for Votes at 16 in Bristol;
5. If Bristol pilots e-voting, to commit to including 16 and 17 year olds for demonstration purposes, and further extend e-voting to Bristol City Youth Council elections, demonstrating innovation in digital democracy;
6. Formally request to government that Bristol be used as a pilot to trial Votes at 16 in council elections.”
Councillor Fodor seconded the motion.
Following debate, upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED (45 members voting in favour, 12 against, with 1 abstention), and it was then
RESOLVED:
Full Council notes:
1. That currently 1.5 million 16 and 17 year olds are denied the vote in public elections in the UK.
2. That 16 and 17 year olds are able to vote in local elections in Scotland, and in elections to the Scottish and Manx Parliament.
3. That the campaign to lower the voting age is supported by thousands of young people across the UK, as well as a wide range of youth and democracy organisations and hundreds of MPs and elected representatives across the UK, and that following a
nationwide consultation, the UK Youth Parliament voted it as their national campaign for 2017, and that it is also an integral part of the Bristol Youth Manifesto.
Full Council believes that:
1. 16 and 17 year olds are knowledgeable and passionate about the world in which they live and are as capable of engaging in the democratic system as any other citizen;
2. Lowering the voting age to 16, combined with strong citizenship education, would empower young people to better engage in society and influence decisions that will define their future;
3. People who can consent to medical treatment, work full-time, pay taxes, get married or enter a civil partnership and join the armed forces should also have the right to vote.
Full Council resolves to call on the Mayor to:
1. Publically support votes at 16 and join the Votes at 16 Coalition;
2. Inform local MPs and the media of this decision and work with them in support of this campaign;
3. Promote this policy through council communications;
4. Run activities to raise awareness of and support for Votes at 16 in Bristol;
5. If Bristol pilots e-voting, to commit to including 16 and 17 year olds for demonstration purposes, and further extend e-voting to Bristol City Youth Council elections, demonstrating innovation in digital democracy;
6. Formally request to government that Bristol be used as a pilot to trial Votes at 16 in council elections.
Motion2 – Mitigation of university expansion
Councillor Negus moved the following motion:
“Full Council notes the benefits that the Universities bring our City: vibrancy, earnings, new value added businesses, employment opportunities and a source of civic pride. But there are downsides too and as recent growth has been high and is expected to reach 60,000,
these new generally short term residents are increasing the severe strain on council services, the housing market and longer term residents in high-density student areas.
Particular groups are disproportionately affected:
- Anyone renting, due to increased demand for accommodation and so paying higher rents, and this includes university staff and their post and undergraduates too.
- Residents living in communities which are affected by high concentrations of this one demographic.
- Council finances; the provision of services to tens of thousands of students. These services used to be funded by the Government from a block grant but this is being cut to zero.
Full Council therefore asks the Mayor to:
1. In conjunction with other Council Leaders, engage with the Government, to highlight that the current approach to university growth is creating unsustainable pressure on Council resources; having to service 100% of its population with only 85-90% of them paying council tax. Adequate funding arrangements will probably require changes to planning obligation and taxation advantages given to university and student accommodation of all sizes. A grant or a means of local collection and redistribution of taxes needs to be put in place so Councils can provide services like street cleaning and implement the housing and transport solutions required to ensure balanced communities and mitigate the effects of university expansion on the housing market.
In addition Full Council agrees that necessary work should be done locally in Bristol and in the Combined Authority to update the Universities’ masterplans so as to deliver sustainable future expansion, housing and transport solutions. Co-operative recording and planning policies need to be updated and true recognition given to the impact that unbalanced communities bring to all residents.
Further Full Council requests the Mayor to instruct officers to:
2. Develop a bespoke SPD which looks at best practice around the country, uses up to date data from Universities on their impact, both positive and negative and seeks to improve the amenity of everyone’s lives in areas hard hit by current and future growth in numbers.
3. Require the Universities to support transport and housing solutions for more than just first years.
4. Set up an all-party commission to oversee the above processes and liaise with Universities to progress other possible approaches and keeping members informed.”
Councillor Smith seconded the motion.
Following debate, upon being put to the vote, it was
RESOLVED:
Full Council notes the benefits that the Universities bring our City: vibrancy, earnings, new value added businesses, employment opportunities and a source of civic pride. But there are downsides too and as recent growth has been high and is expected to reach 60,000,
these new generally short term residents are increasing the severe strain on council services, the housing market and longer term residents in high-density student areas.
Particular groups are disproportionately affected:
- Anyone renting, due to increased demand for accommodation and so paying higher rents, and this includes university staff and their post and undergraduates too.
- Residents living in communities which are affected by high concentrations of this one demographic.
- Council finances; the provision of services to tens of thousands of students. These services used to be funded by the Government from a block grant but this is being cut to zero.
Full Council therefore asks the Mayor to:
1. In conjunction with other Council Leaders, engage with the Government, to highlight that the current approach to university growth is creating unsustainable pressure on Council resources; having to service 100% of its population with only 85-90% of them paying council tax. Adequate funding arrangements will probably require changes to planning obligation and taxation advantages given to university and student accommodation of all sizes. A grant or a means of local collection and redistribution of taxes needs to be put in place so Councils can provide services like street cleaning and implement the housing and transport solutions required to ensure balanced communities and mitigate the effects of university expansion on the housing market.
In addition Full Council agrees that necessary work should be done locally in Bristol and in the Combined Authority to update the Universities’ masterplans so as to deliver sustainable future expansion, housing and transport solutions. Co-operative recording and planning policies need to be updated and true recognition given to the impact that unbalanced communities bring to all residents.
Further Full Council requests the Mayor to instruct officers to:
2. Develop a bespoke SPD which looks at best practice around the country, uses up to date data from Universities on their impact, both positive and negative and seeks to improve the amenity of everyone’s lives in areas hard hit by current and future growth in
numbers.
3. Require the Universities to support transport and housing solutions for more than just first years.
4. Set up an all-party commission to oversee the above processes and liaise with Universities to progress other possible approaches and keeping members informed.
Supporting documents: